"If I say "Slashdotters are nerds", you don't 'disprove' what I said just by pointing out that you personally aren't a nerd,"
Well, actually, I think that's EXACTLY what happens. You made an overbroad statement, and somebody pointed out how that statement was not, in fact, true.
"It's supposed to be mutually understood what my actual idea is."
Is it? How do you figure? Why am I supposed to just magically understand your unclear formation of ideas?
So the Framers did not intend for us to be free to communicate electronically, without unreasonable search?
I think that's a pretty silly claim, since the Framers had no concept of telecommunications, and explicitly specified "papers" (the communications medium of the time) as one of the things that should be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.
I thought that the distinction was pretty simple. If you can interbreed with another creature, and the offspring is fertile, you are the same species. If not (eg. donkeys and horses), not.
But the Cultural Revolution...you're down with that?
How do you separate a theory from its practice? IN THEORY Communism looks great. In practice, it completely ignores the fact that humans WILL act in their own percieved interest, and will NOT give "to each according to their needs".
Charity is a virtue, but it's a rotten idea to base a society on the notion that everybody agrees with me.
"If you don't act like most of the world is dumber than you are"
If you think the global normal distribution applies to specialists (like folks with the expertise to design and fly test aircraft), I think I can pretty accurately locate you on the global normal distribution.
I think it's a pretty good assumption that the people elbow-deep in this experiment understand the limitations and advantages of their idea. Will there be problems? Of course. Will some of those be glaringly obvious in retrospect? Absolutely. Do I think any of them are going to come to light in a/. discussion of a fluffy article? No.
"A wireless control system is a wireless control system-"
And a butter knife is a Damascus bastard sword. Uh huh.
"Well, the fact is, at an IQ of 101, most people ARE dumber than you are (by the very definition of IQ)."
Well, gee, thanks for that, Captain Statistical Certainties. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
"Well, apparently engineers of the Boeing 747 never considered the situation of people with box cutters cutting down their cardboard door...."
I'm sure they DID consider it, and considering the resistance the airlines showed to armoring the barn door after the horses ran out, it wasn't considered "worth it". Despite my arguments to the contrary, many peoples' assessment of risk changed.
"They're using bluetooth for what should be a security critical application."
People use wires for security critical applications all the time. Ever heard of a "wiretap"? There's no reason in the world why the signals couldn't be encrypted over a Bluetooth link.
Is this a good idea? I don't know...seems like it's got some advantages and disadvantages, kinda like everything else. I would wager that the engineers doing these tests (you know, tests? What you do before you put a bunch of people in a metal tube and shoot 'em through the sky at high subsonic speed?) have given a bit of thought to the failure modes, and are designing the system accordingly.
Are they smarter or less smart than me? Dunno. I do know that they have a lot more information about the problem they're trying to solve than I do.
Slashdot Mirror
You're excused. Need a hug?
That's a tough one. Do the terrorists have good dental coverage?
"most markets are propelled by commercial competition"
Did you sleep through the 90's?
"If I say "Slashdotters are nerds", you don't 'disprove' what I said just by pointing out that you personally aren't a nerd,"
Well, actually, I think that's EXACTLY what happens. You made an overbroad statement, and somebody pointed out how that statement was not, in fact, true.
"It's supposed to be mutually understood what my actual idea is."
Is it? How do you figure? Why am I supposed to just magically understand your unclear formation of ideas?
Where did I assert that mm and dd are well-designed? Seriously...I'm curious.
...come again?
"The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do."
The biggest unreliability with Windows is the reliance on users not doing stupid things in order to stay reliable.
That's a dumb thing to rely on. ASSUME the user is going to do unwise things, and design around that assumption.
I don't use free/libre software, and have similar stability. (Yep, I've got a Mac.)
The determinant is not free vs. not free. It's well-engineered vs. Microsoft.
"Plus I enjoy being the only person at work who doesn't have a trendy ipod"
Because doing what other people AREN'T doing is way, WAY cooler than doing what they ARE doing.
Your behavior is still dictated by the herd if you insist on always walking in exactly the opposite direction from the herd.
That's what I look for in my barn security...doors that are easy to close after the horses have run off.
That moist "thwap" sound was my point, hitting you in the forehead. Go you.
See, when you don't get the joke, it's usually better to just stop.
Um, thanks for sharing?
So the Framers did not intend for us to be free to communicate electronically, without unreasonable search?
I think that's a pretty silly claim, since the Framers had no concept of telecommunications, and explicitly specified "papers" (the communications medium of the time) as one of the things that should be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.
I thought that the distinction was pretty simple. If you can interbreed with another creature, and the offspring is fertile, you are the same species. If not (eg. donkeys and horses), not.
Pig and elephant DNA just won't splice.
Is Capitalism the answer? No, it's not...but it's less bad than the alternatives. That's its only virtue.
Would you rather be poor in America or poor in China?
But the Cultural Revolution...you're down with that?
How do you separate a theory from its practice? IN THEORY Communism looks great. In practice, it completely ignores the fact that humans WILL act in their own percieved interest, and will NOT give "to each according to their needs".
Charity is a virtue, but it's a rotten idea to base a society on the notion that everybody agrees with me.
I prefer to measure in 747's full of telephone books crashing into LA storage units.
"How about the FDA regulate... food and drugs?"
Things that are ingested...right. Regulating nanomachines isn't that far of a stretch, is it?
No, the RIAA figures that's 50 hours of entertainment they're not getting paid for.
"communism is nothing to fear, nor ever was."
Yep. Stalin was just a big, misunderstood teddy bear. And the Cultural Revolution was really about getting more people to watch ballet.
"If you don't act like most of the world is dumber than you are"
/. discussion of a fluffy article? No.
If you think the global normal distribution applies to specialists (like folks with the expertise to design and fly test aircraft), I think I can pretty accurately locate you on the global normal distribution.
I think it's a pretty good assumption that the people elbow-deep in this experiment understand the limitations and advantages of their idea. Will there be problems? Of course. Will some of those be glaringly obvious in retrospect? Absolutely. Do I think any of them are going to come to light in a
"A wireless control system is a wireless control system-"
And a butter knife is a Damascus bastard sword. Uh huh.
"Well, the fact is, at an IQ of 101, most people ARE dumber than you are (by the very definition of IQ)."
Well, gee, thanks for that, Captain Statistical Certainties. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
"Well, apparently engineers of the Boeing 747 never considered the situation of people with box cutters cutting down their cardboard door...."
I'm sure they DID consider it, and considering the resistance the airlines showed to armoring the barn door after the horses ran out, it wasn't considered "worth it". Despite my arguments to the contrary, many peoples' assessment of risk changed.
"They're using bluetooth for what should be a security critical application."
People use wires for security critical applications all the time. Ever heard of a "wiretap"? There's no reason in the world why the signals couldn't be encrypted over a Bluetooth link.
Is this a good idea? I don't know...seems like it's got some advantages and disadvantages, kinda like everything else. I would wager that the engineers doing these tests (you know, tests? What you do before you put a bunch of people in a metal tube and shoot 'em through the sky at high subsonic speed?) have given a bit of thought to the failure modes, and are designing the system accordingly.
Are they smarter or less smart than me? Dunno. I do know that they have a lot more information about the problem they're trying to solve than I do.
I think I've figured out your issue. You assume that everybody else is dumber than you are.
I wonder if the engineers designing this system had ever considered the situation you propose. Hmmm...is it possible? Nah. They must be doodie heads.
My phone (Treo 650) is a Palm, which is crazy-go-nuts expensive if you don't use the massive library of third-party software. But thanks for checking!